The Passively Multiplayer Online Game

PMOG Forum

civilized discourse for an uncivilized gameworld

Forums » Gameplay » Quality over Quantity

(advertisements appear if you're not logged in or need to create an account)

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Author	Thread
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	I's like to see some kind of rewards for people who are trying to produce/introduce quality into PMOG. Currently the game seems to reward more people who are just very active (checking a lot of websites for the DP, (scripts and all), blowing through a lot of missions) and/or flooding the game with stuff (create small random missions of bookmarks without much coherency, place 100 st nicks/portals/crates wherever they can, etc. I was thinking that the developers should develop methods to encourage people to not only create quality content but have rewards for useful stuff be more worth it. This way more people will be interested in producing interesting content instead of spamming the system to get the points wherever they can. Now some ideas that to show what I mean. Rating ----- Allow rating of forum postings. 4 Stars also provide 3Dp and 5 stars provide 5 Dp (or something) Missions: Currently each mission run gives the player 10Dp. Change it so that each mission run gives the creator 3Dp per star rating the runner gives. This way people who just throw a few random pages together and hope for random clicks, will not be getting a lot out of it while high quality missions can get up to 15Dp per run. Alternatively, reward people who make consistent quality missions by increasing their rewards. Lets say that everyone starts with 10dp gain per run on his missions. After 3 missions created, you could change the DP gained per run to be relevant to the average rating of all that person's missions until now. For example: Average rating 2-stars:5Dp per run Average rating 3-stars:10Dp per run Average rating 4-stars:15Dp per run Of course, it might be even better if you allow your algorithms to work with decimals, in the background, for a bigger scale, but that's not so important. Alternatively, take only the average of the last 5 missions so that someone who starts off with bad missions can eventually try and make his average better (by making his newer ones of more quality) without having to nuke his profile and start all over. Provide rewards for quality portals. Similar to forum postings (see above) but maybe with less Dps per star. Possibly punish 1-star average portals somehow to reign in spamming Badges for quality --------------- Badge for 3/6/9 4-Star Missions achieved (after 7 days mission inactivity I guess, since the rating is always changeable) Badgee for 2/4/6 5-Star Missions (ridiculously difficult atm) Badge for 10/20/30 4-star and above forum posts Alternatively, just provide one badge for each of these conditions (so as not to fill the place with them Provide badge(s) for a number of mission reviews. Reward labelers --- Give points to people who tag other people, say, 1Dp per tag. In order to avoid abuse, make each tag that is removed, cost the tagger 5dp. This will give an incentive (albeit a minor one) for people to help categorise Give 2dp per mission tag. Allow some way for people to mark tags as irrelevant (and punish if possible the same way as above) so as to avoid abuse. It's generally a good idea to help with categorising missions Provide a Badge for 100/200/400 tags that have not been deleted. Team Up --------------- I'd love to see PMOG team up with other web services in order to allow PMOG players to hit two birds with one stone and also have more of an incentive to contribute in those services. For example: Allow people who play in the Google Image Labeler to gain Dp for doing so. Eventually grant a badge for it. Allow people who tag artists in last.fm, to gain Dps for it as well. Grant badges about it. Allow stumblers who perform reviews or tag pages to be rewarded somehow. Find some way to track commenting on blogs. Reward people who take the time to leave comments somehow. I know it should be possible since already cocomments tracks comments via a Firefox extention. Provide badges Hopefully you see where I'm going with this. Comments welcome and if you have any further such ideas to improve quality over quantity, put them here :) I will keep the firs tpost Updated as I think or hear more ideas that are for the same purpose. Keep 'em coming by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
pixielo Level 20 Pathmaker Posts: 3706	Let's see...tagging missions and players used to net dp, but that was abused--and was abandoned for a while. I would love to see that return, as well as the -5 penalty for being a menace while tagging... Currently, one receives 2 dp for leaving a comment on a mission. That's a decent incentive. ~~~ We've brought up the sliding scale of dp for higher rated missions. That would be sweet. ~~~ I'd like to think that I'd have a bunch of those quality badges already...but that is an interesing concept. I'm just not sure that Pmog needs to process any more player data at the moment. Interesing idea, for sure! This totally ties in with the idea of forum karma. http://pmog.com/forums/gameplay/... ~~~ As far as teaming up, I think at that point that privacy definitely becomes an issue. I don't need anymore tracking on me than I currently allow...perhaps if one opted to be followed that closely, but I wouldn't want it offered as a built-in part of the Pmog tracking system. Also, which of those pages are Secured? Any of them? by pixielo 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	Right, I didn't know about previous attempts at tagging dp and yes, it is easy to be abused which is why a penalty needs to exist. I didn't know there was a reward for leaving a comment. It seems low however (as much as opening a random page on the net, which is easier than writing a comment). I'm just not sure that Pmog needs to process any more player data at the moment. Well As long as the servers can handle it, I don't see why not. Quality badges are much more difficult to achieve than quantity badges since it takes an effort to socialize (Reduce your rivals, create new allies which will rate you high etc) and that should be a part of any game. As for Forum Karma, you'll see that I think that's a good idea already ;) As far as teaming up, I think at that point that privacy definitely becomes an issue. If privacy is an issue (although I don't see how, unless they do something silly like Facebook's beacon) it can always be opt-in. It would have to be somehow because I'm guessing that the player would have to enter their username (and possibly password) for that service in the PMOG control panel. If they did not want to do it, they could just ignore that. But no, last.fm tags, stumble upon reviews and google labels are not secure pages afaik. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
nieman Level 20 Destroyer Posts: 1213	There will always been an easy way to abuse any system. Karma systems were used back around 5 years ago on deviantART.com when I was common amongst the forum, and it was quickly abandoned. The very people we sought to admonish used it to easily injure those we wished to rise to the top. We use a Karma system on a couple CAD forums I frequent, and it's... decidedly devoid of relevance. It became a "haha I smite thee!" type of situation. ... After having gone through enough missions where people are just spamming their own personal pages, I have decided that no matter what, even on an interesting social project such as this, it will always fail. The internet is a lost cause for these types of things ;) Yes, I spam my personal blog via my user 'motto' but I've actually had someone ADD a lightpost to my mission for no other reason that to add a stop to their personal deviantART page. I have no idea how they accomplished this, and I find it quite annoying that my own mission was tainted so, but alas it happened. As long as there is a reward system that is obvious and open, people will exploit the action-reaction system to get their treats. The only way to avoid this is to add a sliding scale to someone who just opens 25 tabs in Firefox for that randomURL type site over and over. I did that a couple times, felt dirty, but wanted to continue doing this because I found some cool sites, and so turned off PMOG when I do it (when I remember) because I just felt icky otherwise. This sliding scale would have to be based upon URLs visited per unit of time, obviously. Someone who visits 75 URLs in 5 minutes is obviously not browsing, and is just spamming. So we take down the validity of their DP count. Instead of 2 per URL, they get .2, or something. This means we'd have to keep track of the number of URLs visited in the last "x" Minutes, for the sake of argument, let's say 10 minutes. Also, we'd have to establish the magic number to degrade the URL validity. (1 newURL) = (2DP) / (recentURLcount / 10 [# minutes to bias them on]) Given this, say I visit a new URL, but I've visited 50 sites in the last 10 minutes. I would then get (2 / [50/10] ) DP, or 0.4 DP for that URL. 100 URLs in the last 10 minutes? (2 / [100/10]) or .2DP 1 URL in the last 10 minutes? (2 / [1/10]) or 20DP Obviously it'd need some fixing and scaling to properly work but you get the idea. Obviously we shouldn't use 10 minutes, as it adds quite a ceiling.. a large time frame and more conclusive metric would be needed, for sure, to ensure that everyone isn't basically given 50 DP per hour based on browsing for doing minimal effort, and capped off in that manner, thereby removing all essence of a 'game'. Worst case scenario? Someone writes a script to automate Firefox into opening a new tab to one of those RandomURL.com sites to get the optimum points.. maybe 1 URL / 10 minutes I guess. The only con I can think of is that this creates a CEILING of DP gain, but I think if equated properly, it would not be a problem, and that a moral solution can be obtained. by nieman 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	Karma systems were used back around 5 years ago on deviantART.com when I was common amongst the forum, and it was quickly abandoned. The very people we sought to admonish used it to easily injure those we wished to rise to the top. Which is why I didn't propose actual penalties for low stars but only a small benefit for making a high-star post (like getting some dp or an eventual badge) In these cases you should only be using "the carrot" so to speak. Your idea about diminishing returns is not bad per se but it is likely to piss some people off since it is based on punishing. I find it better to use way to rewards the actions that you want your users to take more than the regular ones. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
verifex Level 10 Seer Posts: 17	I was working on this one for a while trying to get all the links together, but I finally got it. http://pmog.com/missions/how_do_... The ratings system here could use a bit of an update; I know people have said "it's still in beta there will be more people later", but I do think a good ratings system should be able to scale between both a small number of people and a larger number of people using it. Anyways, I hope I'm not breaking some unwritten rule by posting a mission here. :/ by verifex 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	Not a bad mission but I can't complete it as it stops in the iron man review. As for the ratings, I always like the idea that the ratings that you see should be relative to your interests. It does not make sense for me to see a 4-star anti-evolution mission, that was rated as such by, say, creationists since in all probability I would rate it as 1-star. It would be great if the rating system could give higher relevance to the ratings that were given by my allies and/or people who have rated high/low the same missions I have (My "neighborhood" of like minded people) But I digress... by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
nieman Level 20 Destroyer Posts: 1213	I think it's really quite inconsequential whether we admonish poor behavior or reward good behavior. It's exactly the same thing, if you think about it. It's all subjective interpretation that effects the actual outcome in no way. What you talk about is simply marketing and I really couldn't care less for marketing. That's another topic though! ;) For instance, my idea of sliding DP rewards for browsing. What's the difference between giving 0.5DP to the spammer for his 10 triggerings, or giving 5DP to the casual browser for his 1 trigger, via sliding scales on their browsing-obtained DP? On the surface it may seem to be quite different but let's look deeper under these seemingly still waters. The actual input of DP into the economy is neutral when viewed on a time scale. The spammer is visiting URLs in an intentionally malicious way whereas the casual browser is actually taking time at each URL and not doing anything out of the ordinary browsing patterns simply because the PMOG plugin is active. The latter is the behavior we wish to encourage, I assume, hope. Over a given time if the spammer hits up 10 URLs for 0.5DP (obviously have to work out the numbers) and the normal person 1 URL (for 5DP) then each get 5DP in the same amount of time. No one punished the Spammer, but we have encouraged the casual browser that he will not be overpowered by the Spammer. Take away the incentive and the bad action ceases. Now on to why the system is NOT based on punishment. Let's flip my tactic. Say we give the spammer 2DP for every URL he visits, and he hits up 10 URLs in a certain amount of time, accumulating 20DP. Say the ideal person hits up 1 URL in that same time. For NOT browsing like a spammer, we give this person a 'weighted' DP of 20DP, rather than 2DP, as a reward. This effectively does the same thing as I was doing by taking the Spammer's DP down. There's an important difference though. My method does not crap up the DP economy. What you're proposing would flood people's DP earning rates. To simply 'ADD' to a person's DP without balancing it on the other side of the equation would really fowl things up. You must implement changes, when speaking economically, that do not upset the balance which dictates the value of goods and services. In this case goods would be the items we buy, and services would be the levels gained. They're obviously hard at work trying to get the leveling and item prices "just right" since they've apparently changed from time to time and continue to do so. It's important to not taint the rest of the development because suddenly it's just as easy to get 10DP as 2DP. This would drive the prices of items up to compensate for the lesser-valued DP. So say we implement this system where we only give extra to the good browser. What is the end effect? Nothing. That's right: nothing. We have spammers gaining DP at a rate that is similar to 'honest' browsers because we hand out welfare DP to the good browsers to make up the difference between their and the spammers wage, or DP earnings. This would drive prices of items up to maintain the integrity of the game as it was. That would mean that the only gain is a cheapened DP, inflated items, and thus: a punished spammer! The very thing you admonished me about! How funny! We're now back to my original statement that it doesn't matter which way you split the hair, for the two halves are truly equal. However my half is better ;) by nieman 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	nieman, I wasn't even talking about rewarding simply browsing pages. I don't even believe that simple browsing deserves a lot of reward. Sure, it's a nice way to replenish your DP passively but the point of the game is to USE your DP. What I am trying to promote is uses of the DP that result in quality. Once we try to achieve something with ratings and such, then it is always preferrable to reward good behaviour while ignoring bad (not punishing) since it will not piss anyone off. Do we want people to create more quality missions. Reward good rated missions De we want people to tag more stuff? Reward tagging Do we want people to post in the forum with interesting stuff? Reward good forum posts. Yes, some way to prevent people from using a script to gain DP from browsing quickly might be a good idea, but in the overall scheme of things, it's not the economy of the game that counts as is the content. I couldn't care less about becoming DP rich as long as I could see quality missions, useful forum posts and other such results. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
nieman Level 20 Destroyer Posts: 1213	The economy of the game is the tool with which we reward good content, so it's 100% imperative that the economy is maintained. I wasn't talking about getting rich, I was talking about the method in which we use our items. If items become gratuitous, then so will the purpose they are used for. I just think it's not so simple to say "reward good missions" because it's obviously a flawed ideology. To leave it up to the masses to decide what is good is fallible. I think it's obvious that most people (that I see around here) are simply here wishing to exploit and get the most 'gain' possible by any means necessary. That is why I think the rewards cannot be left up to the users shrugs by nieman 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	To leave it up to the masses to decide what is good is fallible. I think it's obvious that most people (that I see around here) are simply here wishing to exploit and get the most 'gain' possible by any means necessary. I dissagree. These kinds of people find rules to exploit, get rich/level up quickly and then don't have anything to do. Eventually they leave as the game becomes boring. In any case, we've both made our points I think. The devs will decide what's the best course of action and hopefully they'll use the better part of what me and you, have proposed. I'd rather focus on providing more ideas as the ones this post is about. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
ytjonsson Level 6 Seer Posts: 2	howdy, just found the site and I'm exploring (hampered by the mission bug that seems to be going on right now)... I thought this was an interesting conversation, but it seems like you're all imposing a pretty strict value judgment on browsing behavior, etc. I haven't (yet) read anything about encouraging the role-playing aspect of this system, which seems more interesting to me. Sure, there needs to be a scale to differentiate the "chaotic" from the "orderly" behaviors, but I have to disagree with defining one of these options as "winning" by gaining more points. I see the best potential in a combination of two ideas: reward players who "act in character" (maintain their primary, or maybe primary and secondary, alignment), and reward players who "convince" others to join/strengthen their associations with a particular alignment (preferably only one's own, although I don't claim to understand the mechanics at work here). These would make the behavior of people using pmog more intentional and more relevant to the rest of the net, hopefully resulting in better quality from the "order" types and better randomness/confusion from the "chaos" folks. Also, I think it would be very neat to see a player's level reflecting how influential they are with other players. Maybe some of this is already happening? Maybe it's really hard and the devs thought about it and ditched it? Anybody know? And just for the record, I think extra incentive to use the Google Image Labeler is a brilliant idea! by ytjonsson 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	ytjonsson, I'm all for Role Playing elements but I'm not sure how it can be achieved in a game like this. I think it would be very neat to see a player's level reflecting how influential they are with other players. How do you propose this to happen? One option would be to allow rating of players but this can lead to abuse. Another option would be tio have a player's rating be a cumulation of Mission ratings, forum post rating, portal rating and personal rating. Still could lead to abuse, but to a less degree as someone would have to seriously stalk him and that would (hopefully) show in logs. Yet another option would be to allow rating only from people of the same assoc. However, I don't see how the level can be a factor of influence. I actually don't see what purpose the level plays at all at the moment. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
nieman Level 20 Destroyer Posts: 1213	One thing to add, since you're new to the game, and may not have discovered this yet; is that your association will change rather often. For instance, in the past two days, my primary has changed twice, as has my secondary. On top of that, the first case I was Primary - Vigilante, Secondary - Pathmaker, Tertiary - Seer. Now I'm Primary - Destroyer, Secondary - Seer, Tertiary - Vigilante. So the first time both Primary and Secondary were associations of Order, but now I'm in conflict, one being Chaotic, the other Order. Also, who knows what I'll be in a day or two? by nieman 7 months ago \| Permalink
pixielo Level 20 Pathmaker Posts: 3706	http://pmog.com/forums/gameplay/... Here's my Association log for past 2 months... Loads of other people have joined me and listed how frequently they change--I change all the time! And as such, I don't view Associations as particularly limiting... by pixielo 7 months ago \| Permalink
spidercoffee Level 9 Bedouin Posts: 33	This seems to me a rather curious discussion to be sure. There is a lot of concern here about how datapoints are earned and whether certain techniques used to earn them are legitimate or not. I do not personally believe that someone who is opening 25 tabs to random URLs to be cheating the system. How people want to play the game is their concern. Some people go out and earn datapoints so that they can be active in other ways, like with equipment or maybe even forum games. I don't begrudge the fact that they have to go out and do what some may consider nefarious things to get the datapoints they need to play the game the way they want. I don't even mind some of the more random missions, sure, you can grab a couple of points from a few clicks, but in the end, people to take the time to make quality missions still reap in greater rewards because of filters and the search lists for missions. Thus the cost of a cruddy mission is probably more than the gain (lightposts do cost 40dp after all). Even is a mission is random URLs it's usually something the player has bookmarked and considered interesting enough for their daily perusal. For me, pmog is a way to surf the web with a community. I can take missions and find websites that were interesting to other people, I can talk about things I've found on the web and I can interact while browsing. It's not a competitive game, it's an enhanced web-browsing experience. I don't really think there is a need to punish or reward good or bad behavior. The best thing this game really offers is community, People who play it just to be the best aren't really going to get much out of it and eventually pack up and go home. So their a level 20 pmogger, so what? A level 4 shoat actually has more advantages over them. I certainly wouldn't be coming back day after day if it wasn't for the awesome people I'm meeting here. by spidercoffee 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	Spidercoffee, the problem is that the game, as it is now, does not reward the behaviour that you admit should be promoted, like interacting while browsing or enhancing the web-browsing. For example, building a high quality mission, with links that most people have not seen 100 times already, is very time consuming. And yet, a random mission about geek webcomics or lolcats can surpass them easily in rating an runners. Add to that how easy it is to have you mission lost in the deluge of random missions and you see all your hard work go down the drain. The filters and search lists need more work to be useful as they currently promote mostly the ones who got in first. On the Dp issue, I am in agreement with you. People should play the game as they want, but currently it rewards quantity over quality which in turns disappoints the ones who fall in the later category. It's not as much an envy issue, where people get jealous because the script-kiddie makes more money quickly, as it is a fear that the people who do more work and get less out of it will lose interest. Still, it's not bad. I just think that if the devs start promoting the direction they want the game to take from the beginning, it will be better in the long run as people will be used to it. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
pixielo Level 20 Pathmaker Posts: 3706	@Dbo Spidercoffee is a victim of the 'wandering posts' problem, she wasn't even responding to your post... =( by pixielo 7 months ago \| Permalink
bunni3burn Level 20 Destroyer Posts: 1366	Well first I just want to ask if you think the Devs never sleep? In response to Pixielo's comment of "not sure that Pmog needs to process any more player data at the moment", you responded with "why not, if the servers can handle it". The rate of things getting added and worked on Pmog are based on how much time the Devs can offer to it. Now from what I've seen, there are not 50 Devs working to make Pmog happen. There is a small handful of them. Let the Devs enjoy life outside of Pmog. Second, while I'm not here to bash suggestions/ideas...I am all for suggestions/ideas even if I don't care for them. But this thread reminds me of all the threads debating whether this game is really passive or not. Making it that a user has to work harder to earn more, moves the game from being passive. Even for the users that open 100 tabs at once, or hit the random link buttons, still are being passive. It doesn't take much effort to click a button. Now while, yes, that is being more active that gaining DP by surfing the web in the so called "good behavior"...it is still just clicking your mouse. I see it all as passive. Third, and my last comment. Setting DP/levels/badges/etc earned by ratings on portals, missions, etc...I have to agree with nieman's comment of "To leave it up to the masses to decide what is good is fallible". There is no way to say that one mission is better than the next. The rating are based on opinions alone. What if 200 people, who hated WoW, took a mission based around WoW? Those 200 might rate the mission poorly based on their opinion of WoW, nevermind the fact the mission could have been the most awesome, well put together mission. And trust me, the internet is full of people who would take the mission just to rate it low because of their dislike for the theme. Which is along the same lines of rivals in this game. I like to mine and nick in this game, therefore I can easily make rivals. Now say I have a mission that is well put together and original...but some user who I just mined to oblivion wants revenge. They can take it out on my mission's rating. Ya know, hit your rival where it counts. Mining me back would only help me to my armor badge. So because I made a rival, now my awesome mission gets thrown to the back of the line because of a user's revenge? I could go on and on with examples of how this could go awry. My point is that ratings are strictly opinion based. And I would not like to see my DP/levels/badges/etc based on people's opinion of me. I don't disagree with the direction you are going. It would be nice to see that portals, mission, etc are well thought through, instead of slabbed together just for the hell of it. I just don't see it with the way you are suggesting. Sadly no matter how pmog works..there will always be users who want to exploit it to the max. And once a handful find the exploits, the whole pmog community will know. That's part of the internet we have live with. by bunni3burn 7 months ago \| Permalink
pixielo Level 20 Pathmaker Posts: 3706	Ditto: "My point is that ratings are strictly opinion based. And I would not like to see my DP/levels/badges/etc based on people's opinion of me." by pixielo 7 months ago \| Permalink
nieman Level 20 Destroyer Posts: 1213	Well stated synopsis of the opinion rating system. However, no, I'm sure dbo does not think the developer's gave up sleep to serve the development of the game. No one ever insinuated that they don't do things fast enough or have enough to do or whatever. I don't think anyone at all mentioned (unless I missed it) anything about a lack of work ethic or return on whatever we "invest" in this game, so I feel the points there are moot. We're just discussing possible thoughts for the hypothetical drawing board. They're in charge of their own scheduling, I'm sure they can handle a few suggestions or extra ideas, like the rest of us do in our daily lives. I wish I had someone in my office telling my clients to lay off because I already work enough hours in a week! ;) by nieman 7 months ago \| Permalink
pixielo Level 20 Pathmaker Posts: 3706	@Nieman Don't we all? I would love it if people just stopped eating expensive food for a week or so.... by pixielo 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	Indeed nieman is correct. I never intended this post to mean that the Devs are not working hard enough but rather as a suggestion on how to attempt and imrpove quality. Also note, that none of my suggestions were replacements for the current workings, indeed they were meant as a way to direct the game where we want to by giving more incentives for specific actions. I never proposed, for example, to ditch the current badges and replace them with the quality ones, but rather to add the quality ones as well. Will they be difficult to achieve? Definitelly? Will they change the way the game is played? Only for the better, one would hope. And yes, opinions are subjective, which is why the rating system should be robust. Verifex's mission is trying to point this out and there are more people who are pointing out how rating need to be good if they're not going to be useless [1]. As for being rated bad by your rivals, well, there can be solutions for that, like not allowing rivals to rate each other's missions (as it will obviously be biased). Also, about someone not being interested in a mission and rating it bad, I dissagree. From what I've seen, people who are not interested in the subject are much more viable not to take time to go through it at all, rather than go through it out of spite so that they might rate it bad. Sure, it may happen, but it will be a very small percentage, and with a good rating system, it will not account to much. My point is that ratings are strictly opinion based. And I would not like to see my DP/levels/badges/etc based on people's opinion of me And they don't need to be. I propose the game continue as it is, but with some extra incentive for trying to provide more quality. by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink
dux Level 7 Pathmaker Posts: 48	db0, the high productivity of users - they are, as you say, very active - indicates to me that there is already quality in the system. Other than that quantitative measure, how do you define quality other than, as bunni3burn has said, opinion? Each user evaluates their own experience in the game, and that's its quality to them. My 'neighbourhood' of like-minded people and I would rate your science-apologetics missions quite low (and I'm not even religious), whereas others seem to like them. Finding a crate containing 10dp can lift someone's mood for a few minutes or get them mumbling "Cheapskate!" De gustibus etc. I assume you see yourself as one of the "people who are trying to produce/introduce quality into PMOG." Am I correct? by dux 7 months ago \| Permalink
db0 Level 12 Pathmaker Posts: 111	Other than that quantitative measure, how do you define quality other than, as bunni3burn has said, opinion? That is the point of ratings. If you have robust enough ratings and a good playerbase, the accurate quality tends average correctly. Ultimately I believe a neighborhood concept is better, but it is also more difficult to code whereas what I proposed, is, hopefully, not. I assume you see yourself as one of the "people who are trying to produce/introduce quality into PMOG." Am I correct? In all honesty, I do my own thing in PMOG and don't really care about rewards. However I am dissapointed that 80% of missions are either stuff I already know (or seen repeatedly here) or completely unglued. If you are trying to discover my purpose in making this post, it's to see more missions and portals that are more interesting than going to a topic in stumbleupon and stumbling through it, as well as to provide ideas that might improve the game. ..."science-apologetics"?! by db0 7 months ago \| Permalink